Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Dentist killed me back in 79, by forgettin to turn on O2 with the NO. Out of body thing was cool. Sort of.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Dentist killed me back in 79, by forgettin to turn on O2 with the NO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Dentist killed me back in 79, by forgettin to turn on O2 with the NO. Out of body thing was cool. Sort of.

---

Explains much.

---

Quote:

---

What govt branch did the Nazi Jew Dentist work for?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"A recent class action lawsuit filed by Moms Against Mercury et al

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"HFCS could range from 0 to 28.4 ug mercury."

300 - 13.6

Clearly, even a very large adult consuming an average amount of HFCS a day is over the government recommended maximum mercury consumption from HFCS alone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Only if you make the assumption that the average is at the high end of the scale. With the range from "0 to 28.4 ug", the average amount consumed could just as easily be near zero.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Only if you make the assumption that the average is at the high end of the scale. With the range from "0 to 28.4 ug", the average amount consumed could just as easily be near zero.

---

What is usually meant by average is the median point, which in this case would be 14.2ug. So no, there's no assumption it's at the high end of the scale, it's a clear median AVERAGE. Since when has average ever meant "some number anywhere in the scale that I'm most happy with"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Kirkules


Or, by your logic, it could just as easily be near 28.4

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
You are making the assumption that the results on the samples have a linear relation. If you have 10 samples and 9 of them have 0ug Mercury and 1 sample has 28.4ug, the average is 2.84ug, not 14.2ug. You are making assumptions not supported by the data given.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
You are making the assumption that the results on the samples have a linear relation. If you have 10 samples and 9 of them have 0ug Mercury and 1 sample has 28.4ug, the average is 2.84ug, not 14.2ug. You are making assumptions not supported by the data given.

---

I'm not making any assumptions about anything. A mathematical average is the median point. You're the one making assumptions, the assumption that it's the lowest possible value, because that's what you want it to be. With the available data, the median average is 14.2ug, if you have better data, present it, but drop the accusation that people are making assumptions, because they're not making the assumption you want them to make.

If I were making the assumption that you accuse me of, it's still reasonable since ratios tend to follow a bell curve in the real world. It's certainly better than your assumption that it doesn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I know your not that stupid Citizen. You know as well as I do that there's nothing in these stats that allow you or me to calculate an average. I was just giving an alternate possibility, not saying that my average is any more legitimate than yours.

---

Quote:

---

I think Citizen's and my mistake was to think you had a working knowledge of statistics. There are THREE commonly used metrics for 'average' - 1) mean (sometimes called the arithmetic mean, which is what you're thinking about), 2) median, 3) and mode.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Kirkules

"If you have 10 samples and 9 of them have 0ug Mercury and 1 sample has 28.4ug ..."

But that's not what the analysis indicated.

First, the analysis was a survey in the statistical sense of the word. Second, how non-detects are usually handled analytically is to take the average of zero and the limit of detection (in this case the average of 0 and 0.005 ppm, or 0.0025 ppm) and assume the non-detects have that value. Third, while the abstract didn't provide a table of values (and the orginal paper might not either) 11 or twenty samples had non-detect (or 0.0025 ppm) mercury, while 9 did, so your assumption of one very high reading with many non-detetcs doesn't fit the facts.

So, what IS your answer . What would YOU do about this ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"know as well as I do that there's nothing in these stats that allow you or me to calculate an average."

I think Citizen's and my mistake was to think you had a working knowledge of statistics. There are THREE commonly used metrics for 'average' - 1) mean (sometimes called the arithmetic mean, which is what you're thinking about), 2) median, 3) and mode.

---